Imposed parity?

Do you all think the NHL front offices have allowed obstruction and traps to continue to allow less talented teams to keep up with the higher payroll teams to keep it close and sort of impose parity by slowing down talent?

Do you all believe that a salary cap or any sort of equal system could allow us to see more of a wide open game?

 

All a cap would do increase the mediocrity more. Look at the NFL. A cap prevents any team from sustaining success. This is lost on alot of people here I think.

 

I must not be explaining myself well.

I'm saying that we already have parity thanks to the trap and obstruction. Will the cap replace that parity with talent parity?

So instead of having close games because of traps, we'll have a wide open game that's pretty even because of fiscal restraints?

 

I think the game would be even worse. Teams as a whole would not have as high a talent level they do now, so there'd be even more trapping and crap play.

 

How exactly does competition equal mediocrity? It's lost on people here because it's a) incorrect b) unproven by your choice of examples and c) stupid.

This is so dumb it's remarkable. By this definition any series of games played by two teams that ends up being close in score would be mediocre... like say the 72 series between Canada and Russia. Healthy competition seems to be something to be avioded ? Yeah, right.

 

No, large market teams won't be able to hoard the talent anymore so teams will have more talent not less.

 

Very good point, its not like all the teams in the NFL suck now, they're just all get better at an equal rate, it should make for a better overall game IMO.

I don't know if it would get rid of obstruction tman, but it would help teams to hold onto their key players, and that would make it more interesting to watch all teams instead of just the elite, which should theoretically help the box office.

 

Competition doesn't have anything to do with it. I could get five people and you could get five people and we could play a hockey game. It'd probably be pretty competitive, but I doubt it would be NHL level play.


When you have a cap, teams cannot sustain excellence. Look at the NFL. Its fact. Talent is spread extremely thin across the league. The NFL's cap is there for the sole purpose of creating "parity", and a byproduct of that has been a sharp decrase in the quality of play. If thats what you want for the NHL, fine. I hold my team to higher standards.

 

I guess the Detroit Lions have missed the part about improving at an equal rate.

You're right, not all teams in the NFL suck. There's a handful of pretty good teams and a handful of very bad teams. The rest are just kinda out there and they win or lose becuase somebody has to. IF you think the good teams now could compete with the good temas of the 60's, 70's and 80's, you're wrong. The problem is those good teams are not able to keep their players because of the cap. So after a couple years, they're back to mediocrity, and someone else takes their place. If thats what you want, fine. I want my team to be able to build themselves into an elite team, and maintain that team for as long as they want, not as long a s they're allowed to.

Search on google for NFL parity. I'm definitely not the only one who feels this way.

 

Sorry, I don't follow. It seems to me that the pool of players in the league will be the same therefore all the teams as a whole (effectively the league) will have the same amount of talent regardless.

The question being put forward by triggrman is will the talent be spread out more evenly across teams with a cap and if so, will teams that relied on clutching etc. to even things up, (because they were less talented), now rely on talent to even things up instead? If that is the case then we should see more wide open hockey.

The premise being that the league tacitly endorsed the clutching etc. to allow a more balanced league, but if the player pool will be more spread out under a cap the league will now crack down in earnest without fear of upsetting league parity.

As far as I'm concerned, at this point I don't care anymore. Just get them back playing.

 

I don't follow your logic. Because more teams will have access to the talent then teams will be less talented? Where's is the talent going?

There is just as much talent in the NFL as ever, if not more, how can a cap lower the talent in the league? Does it prevent long dynasties? I don't know, the Patriots have broken the streak for most consective wins, and seem to have a pretty good thing going on over there. The Titans are hurting because of injuries this season but we're generally in the playoffs.

Being in Detroit though I can understand why you think the NFL sucks and the NHL is great.

 

Is the NFL not exciting to some of you?

 

Thanks for keeping it on topic. And I agree with you.

 

Which teams are the ones now who play a high tempo, more offensive game? THey can becuase they have alot of good players. A cap prevents a team from alot of good players.

Yes, talent would be spread more evenly around the league. But if each team has 2 or 3 pretty good players and the rest are average at best(which is what looks like in the NFL) then quality of play suffers greatly.

They could crack down or crack up on the obstruction all they want. It won't increase the quality of play, because it can't increase the quality of the players.

 

Yes talent will be spread out more. But no one team will be great.

There might be more talent than ever in the NFL, but the quality of play has never been worse becuase that talent is not concentrated among the top teams.

It has nothign to do with me hating the NFL. I think the quality of play in the NFL is pretty low, and I put alot of the balme on the cap. It has nothing to do with which teams I like. I don't like Montreal or the Islanders, but I wouldn't think it was fair if their dynasties were ripped apart by a cap. If they built the best teams, then they should win. I think whoever has the best team should win, and the gaol should be to build the best team.

 

I am curious as too what teams would be considered high talent right now?

No league imposed guidelines will make up for bad management, bad coaching or bad scouting but it should allow for good managers, good coaches and good scouts to compete with any team in the league despite the lack of ability to spend money...

 

A cap punishes teams with good drafting and good development becuase those teams won't be able to fit those players under a cap.

 

Because those players will be going where?

Back to the orginal question, which teams would be considered high talent right now?

 

What a dumb bunch of statements. Compare the graphs of the NHL and NFL over the last 5 years regarding attendance. Thats your answer. Its nice to have an opinion, but not in the face of facts. Geez..

 

Those players will dispersed around the league going to whoever has the open cap space. Remember, since every team will have oppurtunity to get free agents, there'll be alot more options for players to go.

As far as high talent teams right now, I'd go with Detroit, Colorado, Philadelphia, Tampa, and thats about it. There are other teams with a decent amount of talent, but probably not to that level.

 

I recently posted this very point in another thread, so I am glad to see it get more attention.

I think the quality of play would unilaterally improve across the league as the obstruction could be decreased with the level of talent increasing. If you look at every team that has had to cut it's top payroll players to the spending teams in the league, and look at how they would fair with that added skill in their lineup, it speaks for itself.

The one thing that it doesn't account for is how teams are often able to turn a Tkachuk into a Nagy or a Yashin into a Chara & Spezza. Teams are often able to rebuild off of these salary dump trades. If the financial disparity in the league shrank, than you might see more teams competiting for these higher priced talents and you'd probably see an even great return to the rebuilding process as they might be more affordable to more teams.

Some teams might not have 6-7 great players on their team, but instead 4-5, which would make it more competitive for the teams that only had 1-2 great players on their team and now benefit from have 3-4 great players.

Anyone that says that if they enforce the rules on obstruction and other game-slowing tactics that it would not change the quality of the game doesn't know what they are talking about. I'm hoping that this will be a product of the cost certainty the NHL is trying to get by the current CBA negotiations. For the growth of the sport it's important to improve the quality of play across the league, if not, then it's just another case of the rich get richer. The biggest market teams can afford the best players thus affording the best on ice product. Meanwhile, the teams struggling to pack the arena's continue to struggle when they can only afford to ice a team of obstructors.

If you are a fan of Detroit, Colorado, or another big market team, you might not like the sound of it because that means you will see one of your skilled players on the other side in due time. If you are a fan of the sport, you realize it's necessary to improve the game for the future.

However, I don't support a hard salary cap, but that's been well documented on these boards what I do support.

 

I guess you're arguing that NFL attendance is higher therefore its a better game. Maybe you should look at the facts of supply and demand. Each NFL team has to fill up its staduim 8 times a year, usually at a time when pretty much every fan is home and can go. Every game is an event. There's always a weeklong build up to it.

I'm sure if Edmonton only played 8 home games a year, they'd have no trouble selling out Commonwealth stadium every time.

 

An interesting choice. Canada vs USSR in 72. The greatest players accumulated on two opposing teams. And these give rise to the most memorable games. The games between great teams. These are the series we remember. The games we look forward to in the playoffs. Those unplug the phone match-ups of two titans with star power. Thats what draws in the ratings. Those are the teams we want. In the good old days, there were lots of bad teams. But we remember the great teams of the era.

The great Boston teams
The great Montreal teams
The great Islander teams
The great Flyer teams
The great Oiler teams
The great Penguin teams

You know which ones im speaking of dont you?

 

It is an possible conspiracy theory. They keep trying to crack down though, and the players always revert back. Perhaps they NHL front offices were purposefully trying to drag down the quality of the game to give them more ammunition to make CBA changes, as fans might link the idea of cost certainty being responsible for less clutching and grabbing.

The NCAA seems to be trying this clampdown now with some success. Gretzky seems to think we shouldnt expect the current players to change the game, but it has to start with the prospects in development.

 

I don't see this. Caps don't cause teams to get rid of good young talent, or well paid stars.

Caps cause teams to get rid of *overpaid vets*. The guys who no longer provide the results compared to the salary you're paying them. The guys you look at and say "Ok, I'm paying this joker 6 million a year, when I could be paying a kid who's 90% as good only 10% of the salary."

Every time someone posts one of those "this is why I hate caps" links to the NFL, almost invariably the players that were released (causing the consternation) never played again in the league, or for a year or two at most.

Basically, a cap speeds up the "youth replacement" cycle.